Road map for visitors to office

supercooper

Posted 31 May 2006 - 08:05 AM

supercooper

Contributor

Validated Member

45 posts

Location:Fayetteville, AR

United States

Here's a simple (hopefully) map of driving directions to get out of town visitors from the airport to our office. I tried to keep it as simple as possible. It's pretty much complete, except I want to edit some of the lines on the interchange in the inset map so they don't look so choppy. The basemap (roads, railroads, scalebars, inset map) was done in ArcGIS, then exported to Illustrator, where most of the work was really done. Final print size will be on 8.5 x 11, with written, MapQuest-esqe driving directions below the map. Any input is appreciated.

Hans van der Maarel

Posted 31 May 2006 - 08:15 AM

Hans van der Maarel

CartoTalk Editor-in-Chief

Admin

4,126 posts

Gender:Male

Location:The Netherlands

Interests:Cartography, GIS, history, popular science, music.

Netherlands

I would remove the lowest class of roads in all but the inset map. They don't really serve a navigational purpose (except perhaps on the stretch from the airport to the interstate). Apart from that, nice map. The MapQuest idea is definately a good one, as it will appear familiar to many people.

Mike H

Posted 31 May 2006 - 11:36 AM

Mike H

Master Contributor

Validated Member

168 posts

Location:State College, PA

United States

Chad,

nice map! I like showing the full context of all the roads - I don't find them distracting for this map. I agree w/ Martin that RR can go away on both maps, and the exit numbers need to be easier to read.

What I question is the middle classification of roads that are in a thicker grey line but carry no name/route info. For example, the one at exit 69 makes sense, but the east-west roads above Springdale aren't helpful. I'd classify them as minor routes.

But even 'as is' , it's much better than the average office locator map!

supercooper

Posted 31 May 2006 - 11:42 AM

supercooper

Contributor

Validated Member

45 posts

Location:Fayetteville, AR

United States

Gents...thanks....all good things to note. The RR will definitely go, you're right that it serves no purpose here. And herm, I agree about the thicker grey lines, those will go to minor roads. However, my reason for including the minor roads is to shows the "populated" areas, since our airport is out in the middle of nowhere. Seriously, when people fly in, they are amazed that they are landing in a pasture and practically landing on cows. What about greying them out just a little bit more instead of doing away with them altogether on the main map?

Also, you shoulda seen the hideous 20-year old maps they were giving out..I was appauled and took this task on immediately on my own....

Pete Y.

Posted 26 June 2006 - 09:59 PM

Pete Y.

Contributor

Validated Member

23 posts

Location:San Bernardino, CA

United States

I prefer the original. The minor road network is not too prominent to be distracting, and just prominent enough to actually be a bit useful if one gets lost. I also think the minor roads, as you displayed them, conveyed the urban/rural distinction very well without any actual area shading.

You might consider a scheme in which only the roads that are to be used get any saturated color, while the others of the same class are desaturated by some amount (50%?).

I like the other adjustments you made, but in terms of overall design I think the original was more effective.